Unit2Sucks said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I wonder if BG is still supremely confident that Hutchinson's testimony was "debunked (or at least questioned)" given the credibility hit the secret service has taken the last few weeks. I suppose we won't hear from him again until there is a toehold for him to ignore all GOP misconduct while noting strenously that there is a chance that some of the testimony or reporting on that misconduct might not be admissible under the federal rules of evidence. Oh and tha he totally doesn't approve of Trump.

🚨NBC News: DHS IG investigation into missing Secret Service text messages is now a criminal probe, two sources familiar tell @JuliaEAinsley @PeteWilliamsNBC

Results of the investigation could be referred to federal prosecutors, the sources said, depending on the results.

— Lauren Peikoff (@laurenpeikoff) July 21, 2022

The Secret Service really went on a ride from ‘our boys will be up on the Hill directly going under oath to contradict Cassidy Hutchinson’ to ‘we deleted all the records you asked for and now will say no more’ in about two weeks.

— southpaw (@nycsouthpaw) July 21, 2022

---

I'm in favor of see the best evidence and all of the evidence. If the secret service texts were deleted intentionally, that should be criminally investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The fullest extent.

I said the same thing about Hillary's emails (which were deleted intentionally after congressional subpoena), the Strzok/Pages emails/texts, the Muller investigation phones which were wiped, and the IRS records/drives. I have been (and will be) 100% consistent on this issue. You, on the other hand, are a complete hypocrite when it comes to the prosecution of dems who destroy evidence.

In terms of Hutchinson, why is it the Cipollone was not asked by the J6 committee to corroborate or confirm? Because they knew he wouldn't. Why weren't we given access to all of Hutchinson's testimony, including her man prior inconsistent statements?

Bottom line - the J6 hearing remains a show trial. Important facts cannot be found AND VERIFIED in a partisan setting where only one side is allowed to present SOME but not all of the evidence.

---

BG, you and I almost always agree, but I disagree with you on this one.

Congressional investigations are not a trial. At best, they are a fact finding session. But any proceedings, and in fact even an impeach trial, by Congress is de facto political. It is not a trial, and there is no means of appeal or judicial review even for an impeachment conviction by the Senate.

The far right chose not to participate. They threw a hissy fit that those who enabled what was being investigated could not be part of the fact finding committee. It was not that controversial that those who are implicated should not deliberate but should abstain.

---

Exactly this. Congressional hearings are not trials. Saying that a Congressional event is a political action is not any kind of revelation. Of course it is.

---

I would add that of course I think it's perfectly reasonable to question whether congressional hearings are in bad faith or good faith. We've seen a number of bad faith hearings led by both parties. Benghazi's first hearing may have been in good faith, but by the 7th or 10th, it was pretty obviously not driven by anything other than disingenuous bad faith. Similarly, the GOP has said that if they win back the house they intend to launch a number of different hearings, many of which are in bad faith - for example, the release of strategic oil reserves (explained well here for anyone conservative who wants to pretend that the outrage is legitimate). I would expect there to be dozens of Hunter Biden bad faith hearings. The GOP house voting 55 times to repeal Obamacare and pretending for 10+ years that they had a great replacement for healthcare in our country is both disingenuous and in bad faith.

All of this is a prelude to note that of course the Jan 6 committee isn't in bad faith. BG may disagree but that is on him. Our country needs to know what happened on Jan 6 and who was responsible. That's a perfectly valid use of a congressional investigation and public hearings. The criminal justice probe into the actions, if warranted, should of course be based on legal standards and would be subject to criminal procedures. It's very easy to distinguish that process from the one congress is undertaking.

---

Can you provide an example of a bad faith hearing by the Democrats that was relevant enough to be in mainstream media?

Honestly, in the olden days, trump would have already met the guillotine, the hangman's noose, the firing squad.

It's so blatant at this point. They are all hiding behind the safety of legal protections. The only way he can escape judgment is to win again and sack the entire government.

And here is that very plan, fire 50,000:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-2025-plan-gut-gov-114406430.html

calbear93 said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I wonder if BG is still supremely confident that Hutchinson's testimony was "debunked (or at least questioned)" given the credibility hit the secret service has taken the last few weeks. I suppose we won't hear from him again until there is a toehold for him to ignore all GOP misconduct while noting strenously that there is a chance that some of the testimony or reporting on that misconduct might not be admissible under the federal rules of evidence. Oh and tha he totally doesn't approve of Trump.

🚨NBC News: DHS IG investigation into missing Secret Service text messages is now a criminal probe, two sources familiar tell @JuliaEAinsley @PeteWilliamsNBC

Results of the investigation could be referred to federal prosecutors, the sources said, depending on the results.

— Lauren Peikoff (@laurenpeikoff) July 21, 2022

The Secret Service really went on a ride from ‘our boys will be up on the Hill directly going under oath to contradict Cassidy Hutchinson’ to ‘we deleted all the records you asked for and now will say no more’ in about two weeks.

— southpaw (@nycsouthpaw) July 21, 2022

---

I'm in favor of see the best evidence and all of the evidence. If the secret service texts were deleted intentionally, that should be criminally investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The fullest extent.

I said the same thing about Hillary's emails (which were deleted intentionally after congressional subpoena), the Strzok/Pages emails/texts, the Muller investigation phones which were wiped, and the IRS records/drives. I have been (and will be) 100% consistent on this issue. You, on the other hand, are a complete hypocrite when it comes to the prosecution of dems who destroy evidence.

In terms of Hutchinson, why is it the Cipollone was not asked by the J6 committee to corroborate or confirm? Because they knew he wouldn't. Why weren't we given access to all of Hutchinson's testimony, including her man prior inconsistent statements?

Bottom line - the J6 hearing remains a show trial. Important facts cannot be found AND VERIFIED in a partisan setting where only one side is allowed to present SOME but not all of the evidence.

---

BG, you and I almost always agree, but I disagree with you on this one.

Congressional investigations are not a trial. At best, they are a fact finding session. But any proceedings, and in fact even an impeach trial, by Congress is de facto political. It is not a trial, and there is no means of appeal or judicial review even for an impeachment conviction by the Senate.

The far right chose not to participate. They threw a hissy fit that those who enabled what was being investigated could not be part of the fact finding committee. It was not that controversial that those who are implicated should not deliberate but should abstain.

---

That's fine we disagree. But I think your distinction between a hearing/investigation and trial is meaningless.

The ostensible purpose of the J6 committee is to determine what happened - the facts. The committee has two proper roles - to gather facts as part of its oversight function or in contemplation of potential legislation. Those are the ONLY legitimate/constitutional purposes.

If you view this as a political exercise (as opposed to fact finding), I suppose I agree. But the problem is that the committee, the press, and the liberals on this board do in fact present it as fact finding. As if the testimony and evidence presented are the "undisputed facts".

I think the larger question (at least for me) is how do we determine facts, be it in a trial or in a congressional "investigation"? Do we seek the best evidence (i.e., direct testimony presented in full context, rather than double hearsay)? Do we allow one side (with a political agenda) to present only some of the facts? Or do we have an adversarial proceeding were the evidence is tested and counter-evidence presented? What is going on is unquestionably a show trial (or if you prefer, a "show investigation").

I think its is very important that the facts of 1/6 be determined and presented to the public in their entirety. Particularly for the people who continue to support trump or defend political violence. The J6 committee's actions are hugely counterproductive to that endeavor because we will never know the full facts (at least from this committee) and the committee's findings will, quite understandably, not be accepted by the people who most need to be convinced.

Separately, it was not the far right that chose not to participate. The republicans wanted the committee run under the longstanding rules. It was Kevin McCarthy (an establishment republican who is anything but far right) that objected, among others. If the shoe was on the other foot (as it will soon be, ironically), Pelosi would never agree to have republicans make dem committee assignments. Never. It is going to be rich when Schiff, Pelosi, Nadler, and AOC are excluded from 2023 "investigative" committees and have their phone records secretly subpoenaed. That is what the dems have started with the 1/6 committee BS.

I disagree with the final sentence for two reasons. First of all, that has never been the standard. In the impeachment hearings, Schiff, his staff, and others were implicated in procuring the "whistleblower" under questionable circumstances and were potential witnesses. And all of this was in furtherance of the Steel Dossier hoax which Schiff and others promoted. Yet he still basically led the committee (not to mention his role on the intel committee in promoting the russsia hoax).

Secondly, as you point out, these are political exercises. So "disqualifying" the republican partisans (even if they are potentially implicated) makes no sense under your logic. If they were ultimately implicated, then it would have been quite incredible for them to be confronted directly at the hearing or they could have been removed at that time.

BearGoggles said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I wonder if BG is still supremely confident that Hutchinson's testimony was "debunked (or at least questioned)" given the credibility hit the secret service has taken the last few weeks. I suppose we won't hear from him again until there is a toehold for him to ignore all GOP misconduct while noting strenously that there is a chance that some of the testimony or reporting on that misconduct might not be admissible under the federal rules of evidence. Oh and tha he totally doesn't approve of Trump.

🚨NBC News: DHS IG investigation into missing Secret Service text messages is now a criminal probe, two sources familiar tell @JuliaEAinsley @PeteWilliamsNBC

Results of the investigation could be referred to federal prosecutors, the sources said, depending on the results.

— Lauren Peikoff (@laurenpeikoff) July 21, 2022

The Secret Service really went on a ride from ‘our boys will be up on the Hill directly going under oath to contradict Cassidy Hutchinson’ to ‘we deleted all the records you asked for and now will say no more’ in about two weeks.

— southpaw (@nycsouthpaw) July 21, 2022

---

I'm in favor of see the best evidence and all of the evidence. If the secret service texts were deleted intentionally, that should be criminally investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The fullest extent.

I said the same thing about Hillary's emails (which were deleted intentionally after congressional subpoena), the Strzok/Pages emails/texts, the Muller investigation phones which were wiped, and the IRS records/drives. I have been (and will be) 100% consistent on this issue. You, on the other hand, are a complete hypocrite when it comes to the prosecution of dems who destroy evidence.

In terms of Hutchinson, why is it the Cipollone was not asked by the J6 committee to corroborate or confirm? Because they knew he wouldn't. Why weren't we given access to all of Hutchinson's testimony, including her man prior inconsistent statements?

Bottom line - the J6 hearing remains a show trial. Important facts cannot be found AND VERIFIED in a partisan setting where only one side is allowed to present SOME but not all of the evidence.

---

BG, you and I almost always agree, but I disagree with you on this one.

Congressional investigations are not a trial. At best, they are a fact finding session. But any proceedings, and in fact even an impeach trial, by Congress is de facto political. It is not a trial, and there is no means of appeal or judicial review even for an impeachment conviction by the Senate.

The far right chose not to participate. They threw a hissy fit that those who enabled what was being investigated could not be part of the fact finding committee. It was not that controversial that those who are implicated should not deliberate but should abstain.

---

That's fine we disagree. But I think your distinction between a hearing/investigation and trial is meaningless.

The ostensible purpose of the J6 committee is to determine what happened - the facts. The committee has two proper roles - to gather facts as part of its oversight function or in contemplation of potential legislation. Those are the ONLY legitimate/constitutional purposes.

If you view this as a political exercise (as opposed to fact finding), I suppose I agree. But the problem is that the committee, the press, and the liberals on this board do in fact present it as fact finding. As if the testimony and evidence presented are the "undisputed facts".

I think the larger question (at least for me) is how do we determine facts, be it in a trial or in a congressional "investigation"? Do we seek the best evidence (i.e., direct testimony presented in full context, rather than double hearsay)? Do we allow one side (with a political agenda) to present only some of the facts? Or do we have an adversarial proceeding were the evidence is tested and counter-evidence presented? What is going on is unquestionably a show trial (or if you prefer, a "show investigation").

I think its is very important that the facts of 1/6 be determined and presented to the public in their entirety. Particularly for the people who continue to support trump or defend political violence. The J6 committee's actions are hugely counterproductive to that endeavor because we will never know the full facts (at least from this committee) and the committee's findings will, quite understandably, not be accepted by the people who most need to be convinced.

Separately, it was not the far right that chose not to participate. The republicans wanted the committee run under the longstanding rules. It was Kevin McCarthy (an establishment republican who is anything but far right) that objected, among others. If the shoe was on the other foot (as it will soon be, ironically), Pelosi would never agree to have republicans make dem committee assignments. Never. It is going to be rich when Schiff, Pelosi, Nadler, and AOC are excluded from 2023 "investigative" committees and have their phone records secretly subpoenaed. That is what the dems have started with the 1/6 committee BS.

I disagree with the final sentence for two reasons. First of all, that has never been the standard. In the impeachment hearings, Schiff, his staff, and others were implicated in procuring the "whistleblower" under questionable circumstances and were potential witnesses. And all of this was in furtherance of the Steel Dossier hoax which Schiff and others promoted. Yet he still basically led the committee (not to mention his role on the intel committee in promoting the russsia hoax).

Secondly, as you point out, these are political exercises. So "disqualifying" the republican partisans (even if they are potentially implicated) makes no sense under your logic. If they were ultimately implicated, then it would have been quite incredible for them to be confronted directly at the hearing or they could have been removed at that time.

---

His rage-bender seems to be over - for now

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I wonder if BG is still supremely confident that Hutchinson's testimony was "debunked (or at least questioned)" given the credibility hit the secret service has taken the last few weeks. I suppose we won't hear from him again until there is a toehold for him to ignore all GOP misconduct while noting strenously that there is a chance that some of the testimony or reporting on that misconduct might not be admissible under the federal rules of evidence. Oh and tha he totally doesn't approve of Trump.

🚨NBC News: DHS IG investigation into missing Secret Service text messages is now a criminal probe, two sources familiar tell @JuliaEAinsley @PeteWilliamsNBC

Results of the investigation could be referred to federal prosecutors, the sources said, depending on the results.

— Lauren Peikoff (@laurenpeikoff) July 21, 2022

The Secret Service really went on a ride from ‘our boys will be up on the Hill directly going under oath to contradict Cassidy Hutchinson’ to ‘we deleted all the records you asked for and now will say no more’ in about two weeks.

— southpaw (@nycsouthpaw) July 21, 2022

---

I'm in favor of see the best evidence and all of the evidence. If the secret service texts were deleted intentionally, that should be criminally investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The fullest extent.

I said the same thing about Hillary's emails (which were deleted intentionally after congressional subpoena), the Strzok/Pages emails/texts, the Muller investigation phones which were wiped, and the IRS records/drives. I have been (and will be) 100% consistent on this issue. You, on the other hand, are a complete hypocrite when it comes to the prosecution of dems who destroy evidence.

In terms of Hutchinson, why is it the Cipollone was not asked by the J6 committee to corroborate or confirm? Because they knew he wouldn't. Why weren't we given access to all of Hutchinson's testimony, including her man prior inconsistent statements?

Bottom line - the J6 hearing remains a show trial. Important facts cannot be found AND VERIFIED in a partisan setting where only one side is allowed to present SOME but not all of the evidence.

---

BG, you and I almost always agree, but I disagree with you on this one.

Congressional investigations are not a trial. At best, they are a fact finding session. But any proceedings, and in fact even an impeach trial, by Congress is de facto political. It is not a trial, and there is no means of appeal or judicial review even for an impeachment conviction by the Senate.

The far right chose not to participate. They threw a hissy fit that those who enabled what was being investigated could not be part of the fact finding committee. It was not that controversial that those who are implicated should not deliberate but should abstain.

---

That's fine we disagree. But I think your distinction between a hearing/investigation and trial is meaningless.

The ostensible purpose of the J6 committee is to determine what happened - the facts. The committee has two proper roles - to gather facts as part of its oversight function or in contemplation of potential legislation. Those are the ONLY legitimate/constitutional purposes.

If you view this as a political exercise (as opposed to fact finding), I suppose I agree. But the problem is that the committee, the press, and the liberals on this board do in fact present it as fact finding. As if the testimony and evidence presented are the "undisputed facts".

I think the larger question (at least for me) is how do we determine facts, be it in a trial or in a congressional "investigation"? Do we seek the best evidence (i.e., direct testimony presented in full context, rather than double hearsay)? Do we allow one side (with a political agenda) to present only some of the facts? Or do we have an adversarial proceeding were the evidence is tested and counter-evidence presented? What is going on is unquestionably a show trial (or if you prefer, a "show investigation").

I think its is very important that the facts of 1/6 be determined and presented to the public in their entirety. Particularly for the people who continue to support trump or defend political violence. The J6 committee's actions are hugely counterproductive to that endeavor because we will never know the full facts (at least from this committee) and the committee's findings will, quite understandably, not be accepted by the people who most need to be convinced.

Separately, it was not the far right that chose not to participate. The republicans wanted the committee run under the longstanding rules. It was Kevin McCarthy (an establishment republican who is anything but far right) that objected, among others. If the shoe was on the other foot (as it will soon be, ironically), Pelosi would never agree to have republicans make dem committee assignments. Never. It is going to be rich when Schiff, Pelosi, Nadler, and AOC are excluded from 2023 "investigative" committees and have their phone records secretly subpoenaed. That is what the dems have started with the 1/6 committee BS.

I disagree with the final sentence for two reasons. First of all, that has never been the standard. In the impeachment hearings, Schiff, his staff, and others were implicated in procuring the "whistleblower" under questionable circumstances and were potential witnesses. And all of this was in furtherance of the Steel Dossier hoax which Schiff and others promoted. Yet he still basically led the committee (not to mention his role on the intel committee in promoting the russsia hoax).

Secondly, as you point out, these are political exercises. So "disqualifying" the republican partisans (even if they are potentially implicated) makes no sense under your logic. If they were ultimately implicated, then it would have been quite incredible for them to be confronted directly at the hearing or they could have been removed at that time.

---

His rage-bender seems to be over - for now

---

Ah, this little man's obsession and stalking continues. A bit flattering.

---

Nope. The anger flows.

BearForce2 said:

---

okaydo said:

---

concordtom said:

---

So, tell me again who the idiots here were who claimed it was Antifa??

---

---

Antifa leader John Earl Sullivan who was filmed inside the Capitol, broke a window, and organized an Antifa rally near the Capitol that day only spent one night in jail and was then released.

Meanwhile, Trump supporters who STOOD OUTSIDE the US Capitol and committed no violence on January 6th still languish in prison for over a year.

---

Is this real? Why wasn't he killed per USucks and Going4Racism?

Unit2Sucks said:

---

going4roses said:

---

https://www.businessinsider.com/two-men-pepper-sprayed-officers-capitol-riot-wept-sentencing-2022-7?amp

3 years ?
Not nearly enuff because if I did the same thing I'd get 7-10 yrs easily. But when you have the complexion for protection

---

Let's be real. Your family would be mourning you and deplorables would call you BLM ANTIFA and dancing on your grave.

---

In a mob /rioting environment, a lot of stuff that would normally be met with a strong police response are let go due to lack of resources and potential escalation. When people looted Santa Monica after George Floyd, cop cars were set on fire without police resistance, amongst other things. It is generally not race based.

DiabloWags said:

---

And just how does one go about presenting the TRUTH from the GOP side when people like Michael Flynn take the 5th and Steve Bannon and Trump's Chief of Staff who was at the epicenter of Jan. 6th REFUSED to testify?

---

Any jurist can only go by what information they DO have.

At this point, the verdict is GUILTY!

Looks like the Jan 6 hearings are having an impact on the largest conservative media outlets in the country. Let's see if Murdoch takes Fox News down this road as well.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/23/media/murdoch-trump-jan-6-new-york-post-wall-street-journal/index.html

DiabloWags said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

And yes, even if you are 100% convinced the GOP is responsible for inciting a riot, they still should present their evidence. That is how we find truth absent partisanship.

---

And just how does one go about presenting the TRUTH from the GOP side when people like Michael Flynn take the 5th and Steve Bannon and Trump's Chief of Staff who was at the epicenter of Jan. 6th REFUSED to testify?

---

No one presents the "truth". You present evidence and argument - people then make up their minds as to what they believe to be true (or in some contexts, a judge/jury renders a verdict). This is not complicated - you let them GOP present their case however they chose to. And the dems can submit rebuttal arguments/evidence.

I posted this previously - here is a standard CA jury instruction for civil trials:

"You may consider the ability of each party to provide evidence. If a party provided weaker evidence when it could have provided stronger evidence, you may distrust the weaker evidence."

This applies here (assuming the GOP had been given a chance to present evidence, which they were not). This would apply to Bannon/Meadows' failure to testify (if they continued to refuse). It would also apply to much of Hutchinson's hearsay testimony (i.e., the dems failed to produce the best evidence by asking Cipollone about what he said and what transpired).

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I'm glad BG is here to remind us that there are two sides to the insurrection and that he thinks the supporters of the insurrection - his GOP - should be able to defend their assault on our democracy and turn the hearings into a farce.

---

There are not two sides to the capital riots - they were horribly wrong. Just like all political violence, with the 1/6 riots being worse.

Wanting to know EVERYTHING that happened on and before 1/6 and wanting to gather and REVIEW ALL evidence is not inconsistent with my prior paragraph. Amazing that people like you - the first to call republicans fascists - are so accepting of third world authoritarian practices by the dems.

And yes, even if you are 100% convinced the GOP is responsible for inciting a riot, they still should present their evidence. That is how we find truth absent partisanship.

And I've got news for you, the dems are doing a great job making the hearings a farce - just like they did with the impeachments. You (and they) are in such a bubble you think this actually helps the dems on a political level. It doesn't.

The dems are still obsessed with Trump - who is not even on the 2022 ballot - and meanwhile the economy is going into the toilet. Do you think a person who can't afford food, gas, or housing thinks the1/6 hearings are deserving of the dems obsessive attention? Actually, you probably do think that. But you're wrong.

---

These have been some of the least farcical hearings congress has held in years. Compare to the impeachment hearings which a bunch of GOP clowns used purely as opportunities to grandstand with no attempt to address the substance of the matters asserted.

---

Did you watch the impeachment hearings? You didn't see any grandstanding by Schiff, Nadler, et al.? I'm sure you didn't. Probably for the same reason you see no evidence of Biden's senility.

I'm sure Russian, Chinese, Korean and Venezuelan judges are equally polite when presiding over their show trials/hearings. The 1/6 dems and Cheney seem quite happy to join that illustrious group by employing the same show trial tactics and standards.

The republicans will retaliate next year. Can't wait for Hunter Biden to take the fifth and Merrick Garland and other Biden admin officials to claim executive privilege (as they already have in some cases). Biden many even be impeached because of Hunter's foreign dealings. And people here will be outraged because "norms" were not followed. The 1/6 committee is establishing new norms and they are bad for the country.

BearGoggles said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I wonder if BG is still supremely confident that Hutchinson's testimony was "debunked (or at least questioned)" given the credibility hit the secret service has taken the last few weeks. I suppose we won't hear from him again until there is a toehold for him to ignore all GOP misconduct while noting strenously that there is a chance that some of the testimony or reporting on that misconduct might not be admissible under the federal rules of evidence. Oh and tha he totally doesn't approve of Trump.

🚨NBC News: DHS IG investigation into missing Secret Service text messages is now a criminal probe, two sources familiar tell @JuliaEAinsley @PeteWilliamsNBC

Results of the investigation could be referred to federal prosecutors, the sources said, depending on the results.

— Lauren Peikoff (@laurenpeikoff) July 21, 2022

The Secret Service really went on a ride from ‘our boys will be up on the Hill directly going under oath to contradict Cassidy Hutchinson’ to ‘we deleted all the records you asked for and now will say no more’ in about two weeks.

— southpaw (@nycsouthpaw) July 21, 2022

---

I'm in favor of see the best evidence and all of the evidence. If the secret service texts were deleted intentionally, that should be criminally investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The fullest extent.

I said the same thing about Hillary's emails (which were deleted intentionally after congressional subpoena), the Strzok/Pages emails/texts, the Muller investigation phones which were wiped, and the IRS records/drives. I have been (and will be) 100% consistent on this issue. You, on the other hand, are a complete hypocrite when it comes to the prosecution of dems who destroy evidence.

In terms of Hutchinson, why is it the Cipollone was not asked by the J6 committee to corroborate or confirm? Because they knew he wouldn't. Why weren't we given access to all of Hutchinson's testimony, including her man prior inconsistent statements?

Bottom line - the J6 hearing remains a show trial. Important facts cannot be found AND VERIFIED in a partisan setting where only one side is allowed to present SOME but not all of the evidence.

---

BG, you and I almost always agree, but I disagree with you on this one.

Congressional investigations are not a trial. At best, they are a fact finding session. But any proceedings, and in fact even an impeach trial, by Congress is de facto political. It is not a trial, and there is no means of appeal or judicial review even for an impeachment conviction by the Senate.

The far right chose not to participate. They threw a hissy fit that those who enabled what was being investigated could not be part of the fact finding committee. It was not that controversial that those who are implicated should not deliberate but should abstain.

---

That's fine we disagree. But I think your distinction between a hearing/investigation and trial is meaningless.

The ostensible purpose of the J6 committee is to determine what happened - the facts. The committee has two proper roles - to gather facts as part of its oversight function or in contemplation of potential legislation. Those are the ONLY legitimate/constitutional purposes.

If you view this as a political exercise (as opposed to fact finding), I suppose I agree. But the problem is that the committee, the press, and the liberals on this board do in fact present it as fact finding. As if the testimony and evidence presented are the "undisputed facts".

I think the larger question (at least for me) is how do we determine facts, be it in a trial or in a congressional "investigation"? Do we seek the best evidence (i.e., direct testimony presented in full context, rather than double hearsay)? Do we allow one side (with a political agenda) to present only some of the facts? Or do we have an adversarial proceeding were the evidence is tested and counter-evidence presented? What is going on is unquestionably a show trial (or if you prefer, a "show investigation").

I think its is very important that the facts of 1/6 be determined and presented to the public in their entirety. Particularly for the people who continue to support trump or defend political violence. The J6 committee's actions are hugely counterproductive to that endeavor because we will never know the full facts (at least from this committee) and the committee's findings will, quite understandably, not be accepted by the people who most need to be convinced.

Separately, it was not the far right that chose not to participate. The republicans wanted the committee run under the longstanding rules. It was Kevin McCarthy (an establishment republican who is anything but far right) that objected, among others. If the shoe was on the other foot (as it will soon be, ironically), Pelosi would never agree to have republicans make dem committee assignments. Never. It is going to be rich when Schiff, Pelosi, Nadler, and AOC are excluded from 2023 "investigative" committees and have their phone records secretly subpoenaed. That is what the dems have started with the 1/6 committee BS.

I disagree with the final sentence for two reasons. First of all, that has never been the standard. In the impeachment hearings, Schiff, his staff, and others were implicated in procuring the "whistleblower" under questionable circumstances and were potential witnesses. And all of this was in furtherance of the Steel Dossier hoax which Schiff and others promoted. Yet he still basically led the committee (not to mention his role on the intel committee in promoting the russsia hoax).

Secondly, as you point out, these are political exercises. So "disqualifying" the republican partisans (even if they are potentially implicated) makes no sense under your logic. If they were ultimately implicated, then it would have been quite incredible for them to be confronted directly at the hearing or they could have been removed at that time.

---

OK, we disagree. If you think about the basis for congressional investigation, it is theoretically intended to be a political process to assist in legislative exercise. The legislative body is purely political with members who are elected. Think about all the stupid, idiotic things that both sides introduce into record during investigations or hearings that would never survive rules of evidence or civil procedure. Think about how many times Benghazi was investigated. Not even close to being a trial conducted by a separate and distinct body of government.

And I am glad those implicated were not allowed to serve on the committee. I know there will be retribution but would I be saddened if members of the Squad could not serve on committees after the midterms? No. And I can only imagine the absolute waste of time MGT, Gaertz or Jordan would have made of this exercise. They only live to serve Trump and so I am fine with breaking tradition to exclude them. Was there no one else in the Republican party who could have served country before Trump?

Hmm

BearGoggles said:

---

I posted this previously - here is a standard CA jury instruction for civil trials:

"You may consider the ability of each party to provide evidence. If a party provided weaker evidence when it could have provided stronger evidence, you may distrust the weaker evidence."

---

Youre terribly mistaken.
The Jan. 6th Committee Hearing is NOT A JURY TRIAL.
Its more of a Grand Jury Hearing.

calbear93 said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I wonder if BG is still supremely confident that Hutchinson's testimony was "debunked (or at least questioned)" given the credibility hit the secret service has taken the last few weeks. I suppose we won't hear from him again until there is a toehold for him to ignore all GOP misconduct while noting strenously that there is a chance that some of the testimony or reporting on that misconduct might not be admissible under the federal rules of evidence. Oh and tha he totally doesn't approve of Trump.

🚨NBC News: DHS IG investigation into missing Secret Service text messages is now a criminal probe, two sources familiar tell @JuliaEAinsley @PeteWilliamsNBC

Results of the investigation could be referred to federal prosecutors, the sources said, depending on the results.

— Lauren Peikoff (@laurenpeikoff) July 21, 2022

The Secret Service really went on a ride from ‘our boys will be up on the Hill directly going under oath to contradict Cassidy Hutchinson’ to ‘we deleted all the records you asked for and now will say no more’ in about two weeks.

— southpaw (@nycsouthpaw) July 21, 2022

---

I'm in favor of see the best evidence and all of the evidence. If the secret service texts were deleted intentionally, that should be criminally investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The fullest extent.

I said the same thing about Hillary's emails (which were deleted intentionally after congressional subpoena), the Strzok/Pages emails/texts, the Muller investigation phones which were wiped, and the IRS records/drives. I have been (and will be) 100% consistent on this issue. You, on the other hand, are a complete hypocrite when it comes to the prosecution of dems who destroy evidence.

In terms of Hutchinson, why is it the Cipollone was not asked by the J6 committee to corroborate or confirm? Because they knew he wouldn't. Why weren't we given access to all of Hutchinson's testimony, including her man prior inconsistent statements?

Bottom line - the J6 hearing remains a show trial. Important facts cannot be found AND VERIFIED in a partisan setting where only one side is allowed to present SOME but not all of the evidence.

---

BG, you and I almost always agree, but I disagree with you on this one.

Congressional investigations are not a trial. At best, they are a fact finding session. But any proceedings, and in fact even an impeach trial, by Congress is de facto political. It is not a trial, and there is no means of appeal or judicial review even for an impeachment conviction by the Senate.

The far right chose not to participate. They threw a hissy fit that those who enabled what was being investigated could not be part of the fact finding committee. It was not that controversial that those who are implicated should not deliberate but should abstain.

---

That's fine we disagree. But I think your distinction between a hearing/investigation and trial is meaningless.

The ostensible purpose of the J6 committee is to determine what happened - the facts. The committee has two proper roles - to gather facts as part of its oversight function or in contemplation of potential legislation. Those are the ONLY legitimate/constitutional purposes.

If you view this as a political exercise (as opposed to fact finding), I suppose I agree. But the problem is that the committee, the press, and the liberals on this board do in fact present it as fact finding. As if the testimony and evidence presented are the "undisputed facts".

I think the larger question (at least for me) is how do we determine facts, be it in a trial or in a congressional "investigation"? Do we seek the best evidence (i.e., direct testimony presented in full context, rather than double hearsay)? Do we allow one side (with a political agenda) to present only some of the facts? Or do we have an adversarial proceeding were the evidence is tested and counter-evidence presented? What is going on is unquestionably a show trial (or if you prefer, a "show investigation").

I think its is very important that the facts of 1/6 be determined and presented to the public in their entirety. Particularly for the people who continue to support trump or defend political violence. The J6 committee's actions are hugely counterproductive to that endeavor because we will never know the full facts (at least from this committee) and the committee's findings will, quite understandably, not be accepted by the people who most need to be convinced.

Separately, it was not the far right that chose not to participate. The republicans wanted the committee run under the longstanding rules. It was Kevin McCarthy (an establishment republican who is anything but far right) that objected, among others. If the shoe was on the other foot (as it will soon be, ironically), Pelosi would never agree to have republicans make dem committee assignments. Never. It is going to be rich when Schiff, Pelosi, Nadler, and AOC are excluded from 2023 "investigative" committees and have their phone records secretly subpoenaed. That is what the dems have started with the 1/6 committee BS.

I disagree with the final sentence for two reasons. First of all, that has never been the standard. In the impeachment hearings, Schiff, his staff, and others were implicated in procuring the "whistleblower" under questionable circumstances and were potential witnesses. And all of this was in furtherance of the Steel Dossier hoax which Schiff and others promoted. Yet he still basically led the committee (not to mention his role on the intel committee in promoting the russsia hoax).

Secondly, as you point out, these are political exercises. So "disqualifying" the republican partisans (even if they are potentially implicated) makes no sense under your logic. If they were ultimately implicated, then it would have been quite incredible for them to be confronted directly at the hearing or they could have been removed at that time.

---

OK, we disagree. If you think about the basis for congressional investigation, it is theoretically intended to be a political process to assist in legislative exercise. The legislative body is purely political with members who are elected. Think about all the stupid, idiotic things that both sides introduce into record during investigations or hearings that would never survive rules of evidence or civil procedure. Think about how many times Benghazi was investigated. Not even close to being a trial conducted by a separate and distinct body of government.

And I am glad those implicated were not allowed to serve on the committee. I know there will be retribution but would I be saddened if members of the Squad could not serve on committees after the midterms? No. And I can only imagine the absolute waste of time MGT, Gaertz or Jordan would have made of this exercise. They only live to serve Trump and so I am fine with breaking tradition to exclude them. Was there no one else in the Republican party who could have served country before Trump?

---

Its interesting you reference the Benghazi committee because its an example that supports my point. The majority republicans negotiated with Pelosi (minority leader) to agree on basic rules. The committee was enacted

The dems were allowed to pick their own members including some of the most partisan showboats who eventually lead the trump impeachments and the current hearings (Cummings and Schiff). The republicans didn't dictate who Pelosi could choose or what avenues of investigation the minority/dem staff could seek to investigate. The republicans didn't hire TV executives to choreograph prime time hearings with selectively edited clips.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Select_Committee_on_Benghazi#Minority_participation_question

Same dynamic with the 2016 intelligence committee which at the time was led by Nunez, with Schiff in the minority advancing the Russia/FISA lies. Why didn't the republicans just remove him from the committee? Because that was not the norm and, candidly, it was beyond anything that would be considered. For good reason.

I'm not a fan of the squad. But if the dems want them on a committee, so be it. Let them have their say as idiotic as it might be. It is the price we pay for having congressional committees that reflect both parties' points of view. I think that is important; you don't (if I'm understanding your final paragraph correctly).

Going forward, most if not all committees will operate like the 1/6 committee. That is not good for the country and future congresses.

And the next rubicon will be the majority party refusing to seat duly elected members of the opposing party. Pelosi has already threatened to do that. Under your logic, why wouldn't she do exactly that?

https://wwmt.com/news/nation-world/pelosi-says-she-has-a-right-not-to-seat-the-gop-candidate-who-won-iowa-house-seat

pic.twitter.com/YS1lkS1vic

— Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️ (@AdamKinzinger) July 24, 2022

Liz Cheney: January 6 panel will subpoena Ginni Thomas if necessary


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/24/january-6-panel-ginni-thomas-subpoena?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I'm glad BG is here to remind us that there are two sides to the insurrection and that he thinks the supporters of the insurrection - his GOP - should be able to defend their assault on our democracy and turn the hearings into a farce.

---

There are not two sides to the capital riots - they were horribly wrong. Just like all political violence, with the 1/6 riots being worse.

Wanting to know EVERYTHING that happened on and before 1/6 and wanting to gather and REVIEW ALL evidence is not inconsistent with my prior paragraph. Amazing that people like you - the first to call republicans fascists - are so accepting of third world authoritarian practices by the dems.

And yes, even if you are 100% convinced the GOP is responsible for inciting a riot, they still should present their evidence. That is how we find truth absent partisanship.

And I've got news for you, the dems are doing a great job making the hearings a farce - just like they did with the impeachments. You (and they) are in such a bubble you think this actually helps the dems on a political level. It doesn't.

The dems are still obsessed with Trump - who is not even on the 2022 ballot - and meanwhile the economy is going into the toilet. Do you think a person who can't afford food, gas, or housing thinks the1/6 hearings are deserving of the dems obsessive attention? Actually, you probably do think that. But you're wrong.

---

These have been some of the least farcical hearings congress has held in years. Compare to the impeachment hearings which a bunch of GOP clowns used purely as opportunities to grandstand with no attempt to address the substance of the matters asserted.

---

Did you watch the impeachment hearings? You didn't see any grandstanding by Schiff, Nadler, et al.? I'm sure you didn't. Probably for the same reason you see no evidence of Biden's senility.

I'm sure Russian, Chinese, Korean and Venezuelan judges are equally polite when presiding over their show trials/hearings. The 1/6 dems and Cheney seem quite happy to join that illustrious group by employing the same show trial tactics and standards.

The republicans will retaliate next year. Can't wait for Hunter Biden to take the fifth and Merrick Garland and other Biden admin officials to claim executive privilege (as they already have in some cases). Biden many even be impeached because of Hunter's foreign dealings. And people here will be outraged because "norms" were not followed. The 1/6 committee is establishing new norms and they are bad for the country.

---

Thanks for reminding us that you support Trump.

---

Thanks for reminding us you have no argument on the merits and need to resort to outright lies.

And since I note you vehemently support Roe and oppose Dobbs, thanks for reminding us you're in favor of killing more babies.

And since I note you support and defend Biden, thanks for reminding us you're in favor of inflation, higher gas prices, recessions, disastrous withdrawals from Afghanistan, and other foreign policy failures.

And since I note you love playing the race card and decrying imagined "white supremacy" , thanks for reminding us you support riots, looting and other forms of political violence in support of causes you approve of.

You're so sophomoric and transparent.

---

Very mature and heartwarming response.

I will note for the umpteenth time that I don't support Roe's limitations on rights to make healthcare decisions. Nor do I support killing children, which is an entirely separate issue from choosing whether to terminate.

I'm old enough to remember when conservatives opposed large overreaching government but now we've reached a time when conservatives believe the government forced birth panels should decide which women are forced to give birth against their will. That of course is inconsistent with Jewish law and I look forward to first amendment litigation on this point so we can finally and fully establish that the theocracy in this country is exclusively Christian.